Slush piles get a second chance online

For those in the business of coining analogies, the idea of a publisher expressing sustained interest in the slush pile (of rejected manuscripts) certainly brings to mind one, unavoidable image. (Clue: the words "dog" and "vomit" are involved.)

Nonetheless, publishing giant Random House seems to have decided to do just that, suggesting a laudably environmentally friendly effort to reuse and recycle by investing (time) in YouWriteOn.com, an Arts Council funded site which facilitates peer reviewing of unpublished and often previously rejected manuscripts.

As part of the giant publisher's "commitment to new writing talent", commissioning staff have been instructed to review the site's top 10 stories on the YouWriteOn charts each month.

I must confess that when I came across the announcement, issued by YouWriteOn as a press release specifically intended for publication in blog format, my enthusiasm was slow to rise, the obvious point of comparison being with a similar but less well-funded effort some years back. The press release even had a Carrie Bradshaw moment, leading, after some thought, to the careful poser: "Is the digital slush-pile a new solution for both publishers and writers in an inundated industry?"

On closer inspection, though, the project seems more and more worthwhile. The YouWriteOn website buzzes with activity (thanks to the fact that its Arts Council England funding has not been cut), and several of the manuscripts which the readerly democracy pushes to the top have seen it into print already, with one, Caligula, by Doug Jackson, having already been published by the Random House imprint Transworld after a "six-figure book deal". You can read the thoughts of another successful YouWriteOn "author of the year" on the web magazine Identity Theory.

YouWriteOn, which suggests a desire on the part of other big-business publishers to muscle in on the act, cites the music industry's harnessing of internet-enhanced listener power, and suggests that it is time for the book world to follow suit. To my mind, though, the most obvious analogy is with scientific and academic publishing, where quality of published material is entirely guaranteed by (unpaid) peer review. The judgment of experts with expertise similar to that of a putative author is final, and official commissioning editors take a backseat role. While publishing fiction obviously calls for other kinds of expertise, such as market awareness and an eye for creating sustainable lists, the esteem of other writers is obviously something that should - and now could - be put to good commercial use.

The jury on the project, then, as juries often are, is out. And at the risk of coming over all Carrie Bradshaw myself, one must wonder whether this is merely a ploy for a famously cynical industry to present itself engaged in something resembling progress, or whether they are for real. Is the slush-pile the publisher's new slush-fund?